Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-07-14
NO STATE DIVISION.
Another Response to Judge Wild
ney, and, Incidentally, 10 the
Editor of the Herald.

ney, and, Incidentally, 10 the
Editor of the Herald.
In our communication. published in
Sundays edition of the HERALD, we
took occasion to quote Sec. 3 OF Art. 1
of the Constitution of the United
States. We asserted the inevitable
deduction therefrom that while Con-
gress was empowered to admit new
States into the Union there was an
express injunction against forming
States-that it has no creative power
N that respect, and cannot admit into
II ,he Union any territory, district on
other political entity less than a State
that such State must exist, as q
separate independent body polite,
before it can be admitted under that
clause of the Constitution-and that
there was no other clause in that
instrument pertaining to the sub
ject. 1t was not an argument but Il
faithful rehearsal of Constitutional
law.
The new State which Congress may
admit, by virtue OF that clause, does
not owe its existence by the fact of
its admission, and does not begin to
exist coeval with that fact; for if that
be so, then Congress makes the State !;
for no power but Congress can admit
State into the Union. And that re-
suit ii. e. the making of the State by
Congress) would falsify the universal
and fundamental principles of this
country, that a free and American
State can be made only by the people,
its component members. Congress
has no power to make States.
If it be claimed that the Constitu-
tional prohibition was overruled and
annulled by practice in the case OF
Maine, Kentucky and Tennessee,
which were, respectively, formed
and erected within the jurisdiction"
of Massachusetts,, Virginia and North
Carolina, we have to say that, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, it
must be assumed that both Congress
and the people did obey the Constitu-
ton and fulfil all its requirements in
form and substance. If it be shown
that in these instances, the Constitu-
| tlpIl Was OlcltSdlNC,i anu DIohtu, Stlll
| it must be insisted that those abuses
do not absolve the people or the Con-
gress from the duty to obey the plain
letter and sense of the Constitution.
In the editorial of the same date as
our communication it is asserted that
Maine was formed out of Massachu-
sets in the same way that South Cali
fornia will be erected out of Califor-
mia. The Legislature of Massachu-
setts passed an act on the 18th of
June, 1919, authorizing the formation
of the new State, and Congress ad-
mitted Maine into the Union On the
Sd of March 1920"
But is the editor of the HERALD
completely satisfied that this action of
the Massachusetts Legislature sufficed
for the subsequent course of Con-
gress? The history of the transaction
reveals that under the authorization of
such legislative act, the people en-
braced in the area of Maine, through
its temporary Legislature, formed the
new State of Maine, adopted a
State Constitution, and then knocked
at the doors of Congress for
admission into the Union. That
is what West Virginia did not do.
That is what Southern California"
has not done, and was not required to
do under the act of the State of Cali
fornia of April Is, 1859. The act itself
admitting Maine is conclusive upon
this subject:
"From and after the 18th day of
/ MARCH, tr,t tho 1pOA :
Maine is hereby declared to be one of
the United States of America, and ad-
mitted to the Union on an equal foot
ing with the original States, in all re-
spects whatever" At the time of its
admission it was an organized State
by the joint consent of the mother
State and its own legislature-fowing
back, of course, into the bosom of the
mother State unless Congress should
ratify such joint action and rear it into
distinct and permanent and irrevoca-
bic statehood.
With this proper view of the matter
there is seen the impossibility of Con-
gressional action until the people of
the counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, San
| Beruardino and Buena Vista effect a
State organization and ratify the ac-
ton OF the old State OF California.
The act OF 1859 was suicidal by the
provision for the continuance of "the
connection existing between this State
and the said counties until the organ
ization and establishment OF separate
government therefor, under a law OF
Congress to that effect" We have
already seen that such organisation
must preeede the action of Congress.
And what becomes of Judge Wild
ney's dictum that Congressional action
is now the only requisite to statehood
in view OF sec. 5th of the Act of 1859
Was he aware OF its existence? That
section provides aboard to "settle and
adjust the property and financial
affairs between the State OF California
and the new Governmen-who shall.
IA The oppOrtionment of the same, take
as a basis the respective number of yotes
polled at the general election of 1855. .
The Judge says the law of 1859 is un-
repealed and of binding efficacy. To
thus drive us back to contingency of
twenty-seven years ago in order to
determine the amount of indebtedness
of the new Government to the State of
california is depth of absurdity that
no plummet line of modern invention
can reach. In attempting to revamp
this worm-eaten and ridiculous statute
the Judge is clearly erratic. But saws